Question about New Testament (with OT)

[Grey Wolf]

Steve bboy wrote:
> Personally, I carry that one step farther and believe that if a male
> couple is in a loving commited relationship, then there is love
> without harm and therefore no sin. No harm, no foul.

Ok, I've finally isolated my troubles with your argument, Steve. It's 
right there: since there is no harm, there is no *sin*. Now, before 
half the list goes up in flames, let me state my position (and maybe, 
in doing it, you'll see where I'm getting at). I believe that there is 
nothing morally wrong in homosexual (gay, since you prefer it) sex or 
love. I believe their social marriage should be legal. That has nothing 
to do with it being sin or not. Chosen the right religion, many things 
are sin - this one in particular, but so many others. Now, up to this 
point we were discussing Old Testament and New Testament definition of 
morality of gay sex. And, in that constraint, I tried to point out 
that, regardless of what we felt was correct, the Old Testament did, 
indeed, classify gay sex as sin (while New Testament leaves it to 
interpretation).

But now you've suddenly changed tables on me, and said *you* don't 
consider it sin. Now, we have a problem, here. Sin can be defined as 
"that which is declared wrong by a divinity, and thus subject to 
judgement and/or punishement by such divinity". At any rate, we need 
some sort of god in the way to define sin. Now, unless you've started 
your own religion and haven't told us, Steve, I'm afraid you cannot 
really define sin - neither can I, nor anyone that does not speak for a 
God. Ok, so maybe you are a priest for a religion, in which case you 
should've said, but until then we can discuss on the morality, where I 
agree, or in the definition of sin of a particular religion. I hope you 
see the point I'm trying to make, Steve, and don't take it the wrong 
way. In essence, it is just a nit-pick: your point is that gay sex is 
not sin, and my point is that it is not immoral, but it *is* defined as 
sin in the Old Testament.
 
> You understand that Adultry at that point in history was a property
> law. It wasn't about sex and sin, it was about stealing another man's
> property. If a man had sex with a dozen different slave girls,
> assuming that they were his slave girls, he didn't commit adultry
> because you can't steal your own property. 

Since we seem to be toning down this discussion with a little humour, 
I've been pointed at a comic making fun of George W. Bush:
http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/
(valid today 9/8/03, after which you might have to look in the 
archives).

It does talk about your point about the old meanings of marriage, and 
puts forward some you had not contemplated. And luckily it'll make us 
laugh. I certainly chuckled.

Przemyslaw Plaskowicki (Pshemekan) (Interesting name, by the way - is 
it Russian?) wrote: 
> One just have to answer simple question: Does this human behaviour 
> harm other human? If it does, then it should be prohibited and I 
> should fight with it using possible means; if it does not, then it's 
> not my business.
>
> Does then homosexuality harm other humans? It does not. So law and 
> government should stay away from it.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -- 
> Pshemekan

and, in the same line, bboy_mn:
> When I say 'harm', I mean in every way, and on every front, and for a
> lifetime. Again, just because you don't see the harm to a person this
> week, or this month, or this year, doesn't mean you won't have done
> harm to this person in their lifetime. 
> 
> In the essays I wrote and posted a link to on Sex and Sin, I go into
> deeper examples of perceived harm and true harm. Harm must be weighed
> over a lifetime and it must be weighed on a physical, emotional,
> pschological, intellectual, and spiritual fronts. If you can truly
> say you have 'done no harm' and 'done some good' on all these front,
> then I simply can not find the 'sin' in your actions.

Ok, tackling both at once: While I agree with the views expressed by 
both Steve and Pshemekan, I have to clarify something that I feel is 
important (first, a confession: Sorry, Steve, I haven't read your 
essays, and yet I'm going to give you one to read - but I do have an 
excuse: I'm working on a project where I have been documenting myself, 
and I have enough reading material to make me scream, and I really 
don't need more things floating around).

Anyway, in the issue of harm: I agree that a good legal system - is one 
that punishes only those acts which physically harms or could 
conceivably harm a non-consensual individual. Notice two things, 
though: legal system and physical harm. There is a book which is 
particularly good at making the case (although I could nit-pick a 
couple of its conclussions, but then I'm almost a proffesional 
nit-picker after joining this list):

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/101.htm

Why Physical Harm?
------------------

Steve has a nice list of all ways you can harm someone, including 
psychological. To which I'm going to give a counter-example (taken from 
the previous link):

"At what point does behavior become so unacceptable that we should tell 
our government to lock people up? The answer, as explored in this book: 
We lock people up only when they physically harm the person or property 
of a nonconsenting other.

Contained in this answer is an important assumption: after a certain 
age, our persons and property belong to us. Yes, if we harm ourselves 
it may emotionally harm others. That's unfortunate, but not grounds for 
putting us in jail. If it were, every time we stopped dating person A 
in order to date person B, we would run the risk of going to jail for 
hurting person A. If person B were hurt by our being put in jail, 
person A could be put in jail for hurting person B. This would, of 
course, hurt person A's mother, who would see to it that person B would 
go to jail. Eventually, we'd all be in jail."

The book is "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" (Peter McWilliams), on 
consensual crimes.

Indeed, no other harm but physical is measurable, so it is difficult to 
punish for any other sort of harm. While indeed all other harms can be 
scarring, a simple assumption of "psycological harm" is difficult to 
accept. Again, don't take me wrong - I agree that psycological harm is 
sometimes worse than physical one, but today it would be wrong to 
punish someone for doing it, at least without strong definitions of 
when it is scarring.


Why Legal System?
-----------------

Moral systems are private of our own, and the best you can do is leave 
other's alone (except for education purposes, i.e. teaching our sons 
our moral system). I find certain acts particularly disgusting, as well 
as immoral, for example sex with animals. I adhere to the Catholic 
morality most of the time, relaxing some parts and strengthening others 
(i.e. adapting it). But that is my own moral code, which forbids (for 
me!) certain acts, under the assumption of being morally wrong - even 
if they cause no harm. As explained in the article, and have debated 
recently, however, just because I consider it morally wrong, it doesn't 
have to be legally wrong. So bboy is free to act within the margins of 
such a moral system, and so am I. I might restrict my actions more than 
he would (note: might, I have the feeling his morality and mine are 
quite close), and fundamentalists would restrict them even more. That's 
all right - as long as they don't insist in everyone else restrcting 
themselves to what *they* consider moral (which, unfortunately, some 
do).

Barb wrote:
> For all marriage laws to merely require that the two people be 
> single (not already married to other people), of legal age (or with 
> a parent's permission if under 18) and not too closely related to 
> each other (although some places permit marriages between first 
> cousins) would seem to be the most logical way to go, with no 
> mention of the two people's genders anywhere in the law.

I would go even further and discard the "single" requirement. While I 
do have moral problems with polymarriage, I see no legal reason to stop 
it. Consanginuity might be discarded too, since nowadays defective 
fetuses are discarded, but I would recommend that anyone wanting to 
marry close relations should check if they want to have children their 
chances of it.

Back to bboy:
> In closing, I wonder how much farther we should take this discussion.
> I have truly enjoyed talking with you, and again, I find your views
> enlightened, and in line with what I think a true Christian should be
> (again, by no means do I imply that you need my approval in any way.
> shape or form). I don't require that you agree with me. We certainly
> differ on some points, but I see sound sane logic and reasoning
> behind you choices, and agree or disagree with me, I still have to 
> admire that.

I have enjoyed the discussion too, bboy, although it might rest upon 
your consciense that it might be what makes me come back from my latest 
lurking stage ;P . I have sprinkled the entire post with it, but I'll 
repeat it here: I mean no attack, no offense, no insult against anyone. 
I have tried to express my views in a way which is non-offensive and 
I'm certainly not telling anyone that their way of life is wrong - just 
that I might find it morally unsuitable *for me*. I won't deal 
judgement, because in my faith only my God can safely do that, so don't 
feel judged by me. If I have managed to offend someone, sorry. I mean 
it. It was not my intention

> I'm willing to continue, but I wonder if we aren't drifting a little
> too far off group topic. Plus, the problem with religious discussion
> is it can never be resolved. It is a debate that goes on forever. And
> in the end, it is never the opinion of someone else that matters; 
> it's me, my God, my faith; a complete set.
> 
> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> bboy_mn

Well, I quite enjoy discussions that go on forever, Steve. I joined the 
list, didn't I? Speaking of which, we never did solve the number of 
students question, did we? (Note to self: Must see what the standings 
are now). And of course it is only your personal opinion that matters - 
it has always been like this, down to Ginny's probable marriage. The 
way I look at it is that we use this to understand what that opinion 
*is* by seeing it from outside, from the eyes and the words of the 
others. If that is the case, then we have helped each other gain better 
knowledge of ourselves. Why did you think I always sign as I do? 
Because if one of my posts helps someone think clearer, then I haven't 
lost my time.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf